Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

You're suggesting a culture where the majority of inhabitants have no hope for the future. To say that such a culture would be unstable is a vast understatement. The likely outcome would be bloody and violent revolution. War is economically wasteful and destructive to the environment, I don't think the result would be nearly as cheery as you seem to be assuming.

The number of farm workers has also drastically declined but in both cases
we haven't seen a huge spike in unemployment.

That is because the displaced farm workers were able to move into the manufacturing sector. More recently displaced manufacturing workers have been moving to the service sector for at least forty years. The question is, now that the service sector is going through the same process where are all the workers going to move to? (There are only three sectors to the economy) While 100% automation is unlikely any time soon, if manufacturing and the service sector become as efficient as Agriculture then we're looking at less than 4% of the population being employed. Those sort of levels would have profound social consequences.

I used to agree with you on the basic income, but now I'm not so sure. The mistake a lot of socialists tend to make is assuming that humans will go do some thing useful with their time if they have no need to work to survive. I think this is not a valid general assumption, and if it isn't then socialism eats itself (interestingly in the same way capitalism eats itself due to greed), not due to an inability to supply the needs of the population, but due to social breakdown.

Social breakdown isn't the normal problem of socialism, rather it's the allocation of benefits at a rate faster than wealth is produced. In order for a society to have successful socialism it must first A) Be exceedingly wealthy, B) Have a way to continue generating large amounts of wealth even after incentives for work are reduced, C) Ensure that beneficiaries can't vote themselves wealth greater than what is being produced. So far we haven't managed to create a society that can do all three at the same time but automation may fix A&B enough that a bit of social design to fix C might make the whole thing workable.

True, but at some point people will have negative net present value from an employers perspective. In that scenario it might be cheaper to pay them a basic income than it would be to employ them or pay for suppressing civil unrest.

When there are no jobs, provided we can feed everyone, we essentially have communism. The worker becomes the artist and the commodity is culture.

That could happen, more likely the unemployed will be considered "useless eaters" and every effort will be made to disenfranchise them. Warehousing and/or liquidation will be the preferred outcomes by the elite.